Israel-Gaza war: only a two-state solution can bring real peace, China president says in first public speech on conflict
Israel-Gaza war: only a two-state solution can bring real peace, China president says in first public speech on conflict
Xi Jinping tells Brics summit attacks on civilians must end and the hostages must be released.
Um, I am not sure how I feel about this. Why would Xi support a two-state solution? Isn't it more justified to have a one-state solution and return all of the land to the Palestinians? Won't a two-state solution eventually lead us back to another genocide? This feels off. I did not expect Xi to make such a statement.
As frustratingly middle of the road as this is, you'll have to get used to language like this coming from China. They are not necessarily ones to rock the boat. It's a careful strategy on their part. Some would say they're playing the long game.
At the very least, they are asking for sovereignty to be restored to the Palestinians, even if its not a total reversal of the colonial agenda. They also at least understand the source of the conflict being the settler state of Israel. No, Israel doesn't have a right to exist, but if we're to take that idea to the logical conclusion, neither does the US. And yet, calling for the destruction of America, as delightful as the notion is, is not necessarily something which is in the best interests of the CPC.
Not surprising. China's foreign policy has basically bren:
- No intervention in other country's affairs from China.
- No intervention in China's affairs from other countries.
- Agree with whatever the UN ruled on. (They have veto power so they are never at risk, also see point 2.) Since the two state thing is an UN resolution. China supports it.
I know why he's doing it, but it doesn't make the play-acted middle-of-the-road centrism any less infuriating because for fuck's sake he sounds just like the settlers saying shit like this. If the unthinkable happened and we finally got a war against our oppressors in the West, and somebody started talking about 'two-state solution', my blood would boil! The crackerverse would holler otherwise, but the crackerverse would holler anyway. They're stuck pigs, it's all they know how to do.
Even Hamas wants a two state solution along 1967 borders. Nelson Mandela campaigned for a two state solution along 1967 borders as well when he visited Gaza in 1999. A two state solution where Israel withdraws from all occupied territories/Arab land in the West Bank and goes back to 67 borders has been the position of Palestinian resistance for decades.
If one of the poles in our multipolar world pushes for a one state solution, Israel will go THERMONUCLEAR.
Also a one-state solution in the current conditions is going to mean whichever state remains will preside over rubble, and much of West Asia will also be rubble. And that region is a key part in the Belt and Road, which is a driving force in liberating Africa as well as bringing prosperity to the West Asia region.
The two-state option is a win for Palestine in the long run, and China acts with the long run in mind. If the current crisis ends with Gaza and the West Bank not blockaded, occupied nor controlled by Israel, it will become a competition of economies instead of a war of violence. Israel will have the declining fascist-impoverished Western World in its corner, while Palestine will have BRICS+ (or more likely BRCS+) and the Belt And Road in its corner.
All we need is a status quo where Israel can't bomb, bully and murder Palestinians on a whim anymore, and Palestine would leave Israel in the dust in terms of prosperity.
I did not expect Xi to make such a statement.
Well... I don't know what you expect of the Chinese leadership, but their foreign policy is very pragmatic, and sometimes, like in these cases, very conservative and not progressive at all. They want to avoid conflicts at all costs, even if it means sacrificing a more revolutionary, socialist stance on international issues.
And although we may disagree with the position of the Chinese leadership on this issue, a socialist country in our time has no other option except having a relationship with dozens of capitalist countries all over the world. To have a more firm political stance on an international issue could send a bad message for the majority of capitalist countries which want to continue pursuing their short-sighted interests which causes political issues (aka the vast majority of capitalist countries).
If China interferes politically and diplomatically on an international issue, capitalist countries could wonder if they would get the same treatment under their own political issues, thus hurting international business, which is the blood of the Chinese economy.
Yes I support a 2 state solution: Syria controls Golan heights Everything else is Palestine
If the Ukraine conflict has taught us anything, it should be that holding on to unrealistic maximalist aims over the possibility of a negotiated settlement is very dangerous and possibly self-destructive.
Since most factions in Palestinian government are at least nominally on board with a Two-State Solution of some kind, I don't think it's my place to call for more maximalist goals than the Palestinian people are willing to accept. In other words, I don't want to be the left version of those blood thirsty NAFO dogs egging Ukraine on from the sidelines.
I'm surprised people here are still surprised at China taking a """middle-ground""" stance on geopolitical issues that don't directly impact them.
A huge part of their foreign policy since the 90s has been a philosophy of "don't stir the hornets nest" and even though that seems to be changing now that they've become an economic superpower, they stil don't intervene too much where they don't need to. Ignoring whether it's moral or not, it's rooted in pragmatism for their own survival first.
The 1 state solution where everyone coexist in peace is not possible in the current material conditions.
A transitional 2 state solution is needed imho, not the solution proposed by the US where Palestine is an open air prison but one where they can have sovereignty over borders and such.
Only then and after demilitarization on Israel can a 1 state solution be materially possible.
Damn near every communist party had held the UN '67 line for the purpose of holding an international legal standard that darn near the entire world agrees to.
It doesn't solve the inherent contradiction of zionist colonization, nor halts the fascist zionist state from continuing its acts of genocidal aggression, but it gives breathing space for the Palestinian people to actually rebuild their homeland and regain a more equal footing to the fascists at their border.
In the 'international community' (i.e., among certain world leaders), this still seems to be the consensus. The idea is motivated not so much by a thought of what is most just, but what is (supposedly) most possible to get both parties to agree to. And China is here trying simply to echo that consensus.
I think at this point, though, it's hard not to see that this 'consensus' is a zombie, and the territorial and political viability of such a solution is visibly, obviously dead. That does make renewed endorsements of a 'two-state solution’ untimely and even uncanny things to see, imo.
I agree that a single state covering the whole of mandatory Palestine seems more just. Palestinians deserve the right of return, full freedom of movement, and all national and civic rights, across the entire territory. I don't see how a multi-state solution facilitates that.
I also don't really know how to 'help' as an outsider, with a two-state solution. For a one-state solution, we have a model in the original anti-apartheid movement and an existing international movement in BDS. What would helping Palestinians 'win' a partitioned state even look like at this point?
A fascinating case study in how a lot of the people yelling at succdems in the west for proposing a two state solution as liberalism will turn themselves into pretzels to justify that it is actually great when it is Xi.
The only way to end hostilities is to dismantle the zionist entity. If they were willing to accept a two state solution that would have been a reality decades ago, but further settlements are necessary for their ideology.
This is identical to the Soviet position. It is meant to be as inoffensive, pragmatic, and status-quo supporting as possible as to not cause conflict.
Palestine is not a national interest of China, and it’s leadership could care less about it, so why would they risk aggravating the situation for little to no gain?
cringe, but expected, considering how cringe chinas foreign policy under xi can be
Death to America
China's foreign policy hasn't really been the best. They mostly avoid doing anything super cool outside their country.
That's exactly what I expected him to say It's entirely consistent with Chinese foreign policy for this to be their conclusion.
Israel are never going to agree to just pack the whole thing up and leave and no one can make them. I therefore agree a two state solution with defined borders is the only thing I can realistically see ending the violence
Why are people still surprised by this position? Israel and China have significant trade deals (especially in tech)
Palestine, yes. But what about second Palestine?
Two Palestinian states might be a little too much, but sure?
Vice Presidant and Foreign Minister also met with the Arab-Islamic Summit Foreign Ministers in Beijing yesterday.
Aye man we can't agree on everything; it is what it is. No matter how you twist it Israel's goal is ethnic cleansing, idk how a two state solution would stop that, or even bring peace for that matter, cause the settlers would want revenge for the loss of their made up religious ethnostate and restart the entire process all over again.
Someone better give Palestine some S-400s or something.
I think Israel can keep Tel Aviv sure why not
2 Pal 2 Estine: Levant Drift
(|Palestine where the cat dies> + |Palestine where the cat is alive>)/sqrt(2)
Permanently Deleted